Size matters

Earlier this month, HATC published new research, Room to swing a cat?, that reviewed the range of sizes of new flats and houses being marketed by private builders in London and the south east. It took figures from August 2008 and compared them to new draft benchmarks by the Homes and Communities Agency, the National Housing Federation’s 2008 standards and the Greater London Authority’s draft London housing design guide.

All of the property types examined for the research were on average smaller than the benchmarks. The smallest were just over two-thirds the recommended size. More worryingly, some schemes have a very high percentage of small dwellings; nearly half (47 per cent) of one major London development consisted of 22 square metre studios and 33 square metre one-bedroom, one-person flats.

Other key findings included that nearly 60 per cent of the one-bedroom flats in London had no built-in storage space; house builders treat bedrooms of 8 square metres or more as doubles with several single bedrooms at 5 square metres or less. Where fully occupied, each resident of two-bedroom and three-bedroom dwellings has an average of approximately 10 square metres for eating, living and sleeping. Assuming the bedroom accounts for 5 square metre, this leaves 5 square metres for eating and living - roughly the size of a wheelchair turning circle or standing with arms outstretched and turning.

HATC’s 2009 report, Resident satisfaction with space in the home, highlighted that 90 per cent of homes in London and the south east were under-occupied but the residents were still dissatisfied with the space in their home. This new report suggests why.

Does this matter? It does if this adds up to low demand, early functional obsolescence and redevelopment after 30 years instead of 150 years. Costly, both in terms of money and carbon.

Andrew Drury is managing director of housing consultancy HATC